This is what I think about Treasure Pods. Let's look at possible variations:

1. ALL treasure pods are visible on the map from the start.

This will be absolutely boring since the main theme of the game is exploration. You always explore new zones, find new slimes, food and other resources. You are searching for the Gordos and progress to explore a new zone.This is a bad idea for the game, I think everyone agrees on that.

2. The pods you find personally are marked on the map until you open them.

This is basically the same as giving player an ability to freely mark the map. Since all of the teleporters and extractors are already shown on the map there is nothing else to mark on the map besides the treasure pods (only crates, but that's too much).Let's assume you found some lvl 3 treasure pods that you couldn't open at first, so you marked them. After getting that last upgrade of the treasure cracker you can easily go back and open those pods. But after that you will probably have some treasure pods still unopened.While searching for the most hidden pods you will run around the whole map revisiting the same spots where you've already opened a treasure pod. Those spots will be the same spots you marked before, probably because they are easy to find.The marking system will not help you find new pods in any way.I also think that the whole Slime Rancher map is not too big to memorize. If you happen to find a tough spot for the treasure pod you can just remember that spot.

As for me I only had real trouble finding one pod in Moss Blanket and two pods in Glass Desert.Since pods contain mostly decorations it's fine for them to be end-game content. You won't gain any advantages if you open them all, there is no achievement for that.

I actually came to the forums today to suggest this exact thing. Its so annoying to find a treasure pod you can't open then have to go and find it all over again days or weeks later when you've finally made enough gadgets but have forgotten where it was. You should only have to find stuff once.

Why not add an overlay on the map that can be toggled on or off that shows the location of all treasure pods you've encountered whether you've opened them or not or if you don't have a good enough treasure cracker? There can be a little closed treasure pod icon in either green, blue or purple for closed ones you've found and an open treasure pod icon for ones you've opened. Plus then when you have full vac packs but find a treasure pod on your way home its on the map to be easily found when you've been home and want to go back, you don't feel like you have to open it and risk losing items or not be able to find the damn thing again.

Bump because I played a game recently that has a system similar to treasure pods but actually makes exploring actually worthwhile because you can mark the 50 samely looking boxes you find on your map and now I feel sad because treasure pods are still bad and nothing is being done to fix the frustration they bring.

CrazeePi wrote:Bump because I played a game recently that has a system similar to treasure pods but actually makes exploring actually worthwhile because you can mark the 50 samely looking boxes you find on your map and now I feel sad because treasure pods are still bad and nothing is being done to fix the frustration they bring.

At least you aren't calling this a issue but rather something you find frustrating. But being a QOL feature, many game developers think about these greatly before adding them. Small groups of players may not represent the whole, and what some find infuriating may not make the majority happy.

Same username as I have on discord. I do no damage challenges if you have ideas for those feel free to share

Purplecharmanderz wrote:Small groups of players may not represent the whole, and what some find infuriating may not make the majority happy.

I have incredible doubt that anybody would become unhappy due them adding a QOL feature, especially if it's pins and you don't have to even touch them.

Well noticed a few errors of my own text in how I worded the ending but anyway. You ignore the point on the devs putting thought into this and weighing out pros and cons. Continued bumping doesn't help the case, especially when it is the same person.

In the end all this shows is you want it, not that the community at large wants it.

Same username as I have on discord. I do no damage challenges if you have ideas for those feel free to share

CrazeePi wrote:Bump because I played a game recently that has a system similar to treasure pods but actually makes exploring actually worthwhile because you can mark the 50 samely looking boxes you find on your map and now I feel sad because treasure pods are still bad and nothing is being done to fix the frustration they bring.

Which game was this? I'm skeptical of this claim if the game you mention doesn't have a name.

purplecharmanderz wrote:In the end all this shows is you want it, not that the community at large wants it.

Purplecharmanderz wrote:You ignore the point on the devs putting thought into this and weighing out pros and cons.

I ignored it because what it tells me is that you don't want this in the game purely because it's not in the game, which frankly I don't believe is true.

"devs put thought into the game." "means you dont want it since it isnt in the game." i'm sorry but what?

CrazeePi wrote:

Purplecharmanderz wrote:Continued bumping doesn't help the case, especially when it is the same person.

In the end all this shows is you want it, not that the community at large wants it.

I bumped this thread literally three times, all with a large amount of time since the last post, and if you haven't noticed I'm not the only one who wants this.

the point i made was that with you being the one to bump it doesnt show that the community at large wanted it isnt rebutted by anything you have stated so far. 5 people counting yourself have agreed with the idea so far, one saying maybe. that is 6 at most "wanting" it, out of how many copies sold? do you see my point?

Same username as I have on discord. I do no damage challenges if you have ideas for those feel free to share

Purplecharmanderz wrote:"devs put thought into the game." "means you dont want it since it isnt in the game." i'm sorry but what?

You're telling me the reason it's not in the game is purely because "there must be SOME reason they didn't add it," which says nothing about why it shouldn't be in the game.

Purplecharmanderz wrote:the point i made was that with you being the one to bump it doesnt show that the community at large wanted it isnt rebutted by anything you have stated so far.

It sounded more like you were getting upset that I was bumping this thread than anything, and I just said I'm not the only person here who wants it, but ok.

The fact is that bumping isn't supposed to directly say that the community wants this, it's supposed to raise awareness to the community who then says if they want it. The fact that more people here have said they want it, with additional support after bumping, then people who've said they don't want it shows pretty clearly that this is something the general community wants.

Of course, this is only a small sample size, and though I think judging by current trends if we up scaled it the gap between people wanting something like this and not wanting it would grow larger, everyone who's responded saying yes or no here will never represent absolutely everyone who bou-

Purplecharmanderz wrote:5 people counting yourself have agreed with the idea so far, one saying maybe. that is 6 at most "wanting" it, out of how many copies sold? do you see my point?

Purplecharmanderz wrote:that is 6 at most "wanting" it, out of how many copies sold?

Purplecharmanderz wrote:6 out of how many copies sold?

Purplecharmanderz wrote:do you see my point?

Yep, I see your point. You have literally made an indestructible argument there and I have no way of rebutting this whatsoever. You won. Goodbye.

Purplecharmanderz wrote:"devs put thought into the game." "means you dont want it since it isnt in the game." i'm sorry but what?

You're telling me the reason it's not in the game is purely because "there must be SOME reason they didn't add it," which says nothing about why it shouldn't be in the game.

Purplecharmanderz wrote:the point i made was that with you being the one to bump it doesnt show that the community at large wanted it isnt rebutted by anything you have stated so far.

It sounded more like you were getting upset that I was bumping this thread than anything, and I just said I'm not the only person here who wants it, but ok.

The fact is that bumping isn't supposed to directly say that the community wants this, it's supposed to raise awareness to the community who then says if they want it. The fact that more people here have said they want it, with additional support after bumping, then people who've said they don't want it shows pretty clearly that this is something the general community wants.

Of course, this is only a small sample size, and though I think judging by current trends if we up scaled it the gap between people wanting something like this and not wanting it would grow larger, everyone who's responded saying yes or no here will never represent absolutely everyone who bou-

Purplecharmanderz wrote:5 people counting yourself have agreed with the idea so far, one saying maybe. that is 6 at most "wanting" it, out of how many copies sold? do you see my point?

Purplecharmanderz wrote:that is 6 at most "wanting" it, out of how many copies sold?

Purplecharmanderz wrote:6 out of how many copies sold?

Purplecharmanderz wrote:do you see my point?

Yep, I see your point. You have literally made an indestructible argument there and I have no way of rebutting this whatsoever. You won. Goodbye.

nice mockery on the last bit.

for the first bit, they had their reasons for not implementing it in the beginning, to which i have no clue on the specifics. since then, they have decided for one reason or another not to add it, which again i dont know details on. my point there was as stated, devs put thought into any update, weighing the pros and cons. some times the only reason is because they dont deem it important. even your own explanation doesn't explain the statement i quoted in that post.

onto the number part, you bring up a great point which didnt come to mind while making said response (which you then mocked) but lets look at your reasoning for said bumps and original posting. to get this information out there. you are choosing 1 medium to do this over, so trying to bring it up to the same set of players, who many would have seen this post by now. i get the point you are trying to make with that, but your practices don't reflect what you are saying quite as clearly as you seem to wish.

and lets shrink that sample size down a bit. lets assume that about half the 3828 views are by different people. that is 1914 different people. that still comes up with 0.3%. now this sample size is small, i will give you that, but given that for any sense of interest in this idea this is what we have, im sorry if those are the numbers i am required to use.

Same username as I have on discord. I do no damage challenges if you have ideas for those feel free to share

Full support. I just came here to ask for help finding the 16th pod in the quarry; having it added to my map when I first found it wouldn't have necessitated looking up its location in the first place (not that I found it, it isn't on the map I found online).

I am surprised I actually read the whole reply section of this post. I wanted to see and understand why some wanted this feature and why some felt it's not necessary and here is the conclusion I reached.

Every reply trying to explain why its not a needed feature completely failed to legitimately and ultimately prove its not needed. I am no programmer by any means but I have a small understanding on how coding games work and as far as I'm concerned adding this feature to the game for starters would not take a genius to do and would not take a huge remake in the code to accomplish considering most of the necessary pieces for the code to work are already in the game. I can approach a pod and it will indicate if I can open it or not. This alone can already provide the game with a way to tell the game to place a marker on the map for a pod I found regardless if I open it or not. Even stranger is the fact that it doesn't show me its been opened on the map, something commonly seen in other games.

Second the game already puts down markers for teleporters and extractors. If exploring is the most important thing in the game and memory seems to be the one thing you people argue should be enough to help you find a pod you found before then what's the point of putting teleporters and extractors on the map? Are you not capable of remember where you placed these things as opposed to them simply being hidden like the pods? Even funnier is the fact that teleporters that are already on the map that only go one way are marked on the map the moment you unlock the map of each area. Apparently you don't mind this teleporter being marked yet for some reason showing a pod marked when found is taboo.

I don't get the argument against pods being displayed on the map once they are found. Makes no sense. Why do any of you care if its a feature in the game? Would it really bother you to open the map and see found pods displayed? Why do you care if someone else would like to be able to see pods they found on the map? If making the game easier is a problem then maybe there are a few items that need to be removed because it makes the game easier. The market and refinery link should be removed and people should have to return to the Ranch to empty out their vac and should have to go all the way to the lab to drop off resources. The echo net should be removed. Whats the point of an item that collects echos for you in one place if you can just pick them up as you run around the ruins? Why do we need to run so fast? Kinda pointless if you have teleporters.

In essence this request is not a bad idea. For starters regardless if Devs at one point didn't fell the need to add a feature it doesn't mean it can't be done later on. I have been an avid PUBg player and have been following all the request for features in the game and have seen many that were at first ignored and made to seem as unnecessary that were later added and even improved because players wanted it even when many thought it was a terrible idea. Devs don't just create games that were born from their minds, they also create games that people want and will add features that people would like to see added. Why? Because their goal is to make money and the best way to make money is by pleasing their fanbase and this often requires to add things to the game that at one point or another the devs either didn't want to include or didn't feel it was that important to bother.

One person claims not everyone is asking for this. From what I have seen not everyone is against it either.

Basically the fact that teleporter and extractors are shown on the map is enough to defeat the argument against this request. Either show them once they are found or allow players to manually mark them. This is not a game breaking request, it's not gonna put the devs to work 100 weeks to accomplish and it's certainly not gonna kill those who don't want it. After all, the Med Station, Spring Pad and Echo Net are mostly useless items in the game yet no one is requesting them be removed and no one is annoyed they are even in the game.

BraveStarr wrote:I am surprised I actually read the whole reply section of this post. I wanted to see and understand why some wanted this feature and why some felt it's not necessary and here is the conclusion I reached.

Every reply trying to explain why its not a needed feature completely failed to legitimately and ultimately prove its not needed. I am no programmer by any means but I have a small understanding on how coding games work and as far as I'm concerned adding this feature to the game for starters would not take a genius to do and would not take a huge remake in the code to accomplish considering most of the necessary pieces for the code to work are already in the game. I can approach a pod and it will indicate if I can open it or not. This alone can already provide the game with a way to tell the game to place a marker on the map for a pod I found regardless if I open it or not. Even stranger is the fact that it doesn't show me its been opened on the map, something commonly seen in other games.

Second the game already puts down markers for teleporters and extractors. If exploring is the most important thing in the game and memory seems to be the one thing you people argue should be enough to help you find a pod you found before then what's the point of putting teleporters and extractors on the map? Are you not capable of remember where you placed these things as opposed to them simply being hidden like the pods? Even funnier is the fact that teleporters that are already on the map that only go one way are marked on the map the moment you unlock the map of each area. Apparently you don't mind this teleporter being marked yet for some reason showing a pod marked when found is taboo.

I don't get the argument against pods being displayed on the map once they are found. Makes no sense. Why do any of you care if its a feature in the game? Would it really bother you to open the map and see found pods displayed? Why do you care if someone else would like to be able to see pods they found on the map? If making the game easier is a problem then maybe there are a few items that need to be removed because it makes the game easier. The market and refinery link should be removed and people should have to return to the Ranch to empty out their vac and should have to go all the way to the lab to drop off resources. The echo net should be removed. Whats the point of an item that collects echos for you in one place if you can just pick them up as you run around the ruins? Why do we need to run so fast? Kinda pointless if you have teleporters.

In essence this request is not a bad idea. For starters regardless if Devs at one point didn't fell the need to add a feature it doesn't mean it can't be done later on. I have been an avid PUBg player and have been following all the request for features in the game and have seen many that were at first ignored and made to seem as unnecessary that were later added and even improved because players wanted it even when many thought it was a terrible idea. Devs don't just create games that were born from their minds, they also create games that people want and will add features that people would like to see added. Why? Because their goal is to make money and the best way to make money is by pleasing their fanbase and this often requires to add things to the game that at one point or another the devs either didn't want to include or didn't feel it was that important to bother.

One person claims not everyone is asking for this. From what I have seen not everyone is against it either.

Basically the fact that teleporter and extractors are shown on the map is enough to defeat the argument against this request. Either show them once they are found or allow players to manually mark them. This is not a game breaking request, it's not gonna put the devs to work 100 weeks to accomplish and it's certainly not gonna kill those who don't want it. After all, the Med Station, Spring Pad and Echo Net are mostly useless items in the game yet no one is requesting them be removed and no one is annoyed they are even in the game.

Decent points, although it utterly ignores the main point with my "not everyone wants it" point. Your response to it shows a lack of understanding in the main point that was meant to carry.

It is a small group that wants it, or has at least expressed they want it. That small group at the time only made up less than 4% of the people we assumed viewed this post. When accounting for the number of people who have used the forums that percentage drops significantly. You make the point not many are against it and that has nothing for or against my main point. The main point is the small percentage that has expressed wanting this, which only gets smaller as you add in other media's for discussion not covering this topic. That gets an idea to the devs how much this is wanted, and given how small the percentage is, is it even worth the time it would take? As I covered and you thought of it wouldn't take much effort to code, although implementation may be a bit longer. But is that time worth it when they could work on other things that the player base at large is shown to want.

Only other point im going to make here is the examples you used to argue the exploration argument are items you actually placed down. Not ones set up naturally in the wild. Your point holds merit, but your examples aren't reflecting this.

Same username as I have on discord. I do no damage challenges if you have ideas for those feel free to share

Purplecharmanderz wrote:Decent points, although it utterly ignores the main point with my "not everyone wants it" point. Your response to it shows a lack of understanding in the main point that was meant to carry.

It is a small group that wants it, or has at least expressed they want it. That small group at the time only made up less than 4% of the people we assumed viewed this post. When accounting for the number of people who have used the forums that percentage drops significantly. You make the point not many are against it and that has nothing for or against my main point. The main point is the small percentage that has expressed wanting this, which only gets smaller as you add in other media's for discussion not covering this topic. That gets an idea to the devs how much this is wanted, and given how small the percentage is, is it even worth the time it would take? As I covered and you thought of it wouldn't take much effort to code, although implementation may be a bit longer. But is that time worth it when they could work on other things that the player base at large is shown to want.

Only other point im going to make here is the examples you used to argue the exploration argument are items you actually placed down. Not ones set up naturally in the wild. Your point holds merit, but your examples aren't reflecting this.

Hmm, with all due respect, not sure how your logic works or even where you are getting these calculations. As far as I'm concerned this 4% number you threw in there is a made up number. There is nothing in your explanation that shows where this came from. Assumptions is all I see. Also you can't just throw random numbers to prove your point and then claim an opposing point is automatically invalid just because you don't care about it. Because let's be realistic here, no one can claim that ignoring the fact the almost just as many people claiming to be against it are not a valid number vs those in favor of this feature. I have been to several forums where people go to share their ideas, likes and dislikes about a game and not a single site shows a huge number of people on either side of a post that can represent the number of people on the forums let alone the number of people who own the game. And the Devs take both sides into account when deciding what features to implement and what not to.

Your argument is invalid. Devs don't need a minimum percentage number of players to request anything in a game for them to pay attention. Devs will pick and choose what they want to add, remobve and change based on what they wanna do regardless of player sentiment. Bluehole is a perfect example of a gaming company that does what it wants, when it wants including adding features fans have been demanding for months. Even when it seems tons and tons of people want something Bluehole adds it if and when they want and more often then not these features are not even implemented in the way fans wanted.

When you say its a small group it means nothing because you are simply pointing towards the few people who actually bother to comment at all in these forums. And from what I have seen these are not exactly the most active forums around. Most of the posts average less than 10 comments and I wouldn't count on views as an indicator considering the number of websites that have those spiders that cache every page on the internet views are more likely those things are people simply going back to check the comments over and over.

Purplecharmanderz wrote:Decent points, although it utterly ignores the main point with my "not everyone wants it" point. Your response to it shows a lack of understanding in the main point that was meant to carry.

It is a small group that wants it, or has at least expressed they want it. That small group at the time only made up less than 4% of the people we assumed viewed this post. When accounting for the number of people who have used the forums that percentage drops significantly. You make the point not many are against it and that has nothing for or against my main point. The main point is the small percentage that has expressed wanting this, which only gets smaller as you add in other media's for discussion not covering this topic. That gets an idea to the devs how much this is wanted, and given how small the percentage is, is it even worth the time it would take? As I covered and you thought of it wouldn't take much effort to code, although implementation may be a bit longer. But is that time worth it when they could work on other things that the player base at large is shown to want.

Only other point im going to make here is the examples you used to argue the exploration argument are items you actually placed down. Not ones set up naturally in the wild. Your point holds merit, but your examples aren't reflecting this.

Hmm, with all due respect, not sure how your logic works or even where you are getting these calculations. As far as I'm concerned this 4% number you threw in there is a made up number. There is nothing in your explanation that shows where this came from. Assumptions is all I see. Also you can't just throw random numbers to prove your point and then claim an opposing point is automatically invalid just because you don't care about it. Because let's be realistic here, no one can claim that ignoring the fact the almost just as many people claiming to be against it are not a valid number vs those in favor of this feature. I have been to several forums where people go to share their ideas, likes and dislikes about a game and not a single site shows a huge number of people on either side of a post that can represent the number of people on the forums let alone the number of people who own the game. And the Devs take both sides into account when deciding what features to implement and what not to.

Your argument is invalid. Devs don't need a minimum percentage number of players to request anything in a game for them to pay attention. Devs will pick and choose what they want to add, remobve and change based on what they wanna do regardless of player sentiment. Bluehole is a perfect example of a gaming company that does what it wants, when it wants including adding features fans have been demanding for months. Even when it seems tons and tons of people want something Bluehole adds it if and when they want and more often then not these features are not even implemented in the way fans wanted.

When you say its a small group it means nothing because you are simply pointing towards the few people who actually bother to comment at all in these forums. And from what I have seen these are not exactly the most active forums around. Most of the posts average less than 10 comments and I wouldn't count on views as an indicator considering the number of websites that have those spiders that cache every page on the internet views are more likely those things are people simply going back to check the comments over and over.

the first point you make ignores the calculations i made above and seems to imply i have no clue what the number represented despite stating in an earlier comment you claim to have read what it represented. your second point building on that has the same principle of a key point i tried making, coming with a tone of seeing me as ignorant on the subject despite you actually agreeing with the point. and your third point just builds upon these last two points, seeming to read ignorance of a subject despite the actual events

while at this time it seems we are on the same page, it does also seem we are not looking at it from the same angle. i will note your point on the first point being an assumption is technically accurate, since the numbers used were assumed but tried to be as realistic as i could make them logically within my own head.

Same username as I have on discord. I do no damage challenges if you have ideas for those feel free to share